Directions: Clink on the edit tab in the toolbar and contribute to the questions below by adding content or links to resources that are relevant. Just add some information so that other can participate in co-creating the answers. Be sure to SAVE.
1. What was the background, issue and decision in the 1982 Rowley court case? What are the implications?
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley- Amy Rowley was a first grade student who was deaf. She was an excellent lipreader. Her parents asked that she be provided with a sign language interpreter in the classroom but the school district refused their request and argued that she did not need an interpreter, she just needed a hearing aid. Her parents argued that she was not learning as much as she could if she were not deaf. They sued the school district and the court ruled in favor of the Rowleys.
This case defined the term free and public education (FAPE).
The 1982 Rowley court case led the Supreme Court to determine the meaning of FAPE after the Rowley's believed that they daughter Amy, who was deaf, have an interpreter in her classroom as a way to maximize her potential in the regular education classroom, in proportion to the opportunities of given to her classmates in order to reach their potential. The Supreme Court found that FAPE required instruction to be specially designed to meet the child's unique needs and to be supported by services that permit the child to benefit from instruction. In this case, the Supreme Court deemed that Amy Rowley was receiving FAPE because she was benefitting from the instruction being provided.
Some events that have impacted this "some educational benefit" standard today is the need to provide an adequate education for students to be successful in society, the establishment of high expectations for all students, and the focus on "real educational results" for all students with disabilities.
This led to the determination that when providing FAPE, instruction and services must be provided at public expense, must meet the state's educational standards, must approximate grade levels used in the state's regular education, and must comport with the child's IEP.
Although Amy was performing better than the average student in her class and was advancing easily from grade to grade, it was found that she was not understanding everything in the classroom, nor was she performing as well as she would have if she had not been deaf. The disparity between her achievement and her potential raised the question of whether or not she was really receiving a free and appropriate education.
2. What is the difference between a 504 Plan and an IEP according to the law?
504 Plan - Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a federal civil rights law to stop discrimination against people with disabilities
504 has a broader definition of a "disability" than IDEA therefore more students qualify for a 504 plan than an IEP
A plan for how a student will have access learning in school.
There is no standard 504 plan, however, it often includes specific accommodations, supports and services needed, who will provide those services, as well as who is responsible for the plan's implementation.
IDEA funds cannot be used to serve students with 504 plans.
The required members for a 504 Plan team are less specific than that of an IEP team. The 504 Plan team may consist of the child's parent, general and special education teachers, and the school principal.
504 covers more than just school. It supports other parts of someone's life including employment and transportation.
IEP - The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a federal special education law for children with disabilities
A child has one or more of the 13 specific disabilities listed in IDEA
A plan for a student's special education experience
The IEP must include the child's present levels of performance, the annual goals, the services received, when they will begin to be implemented and for how long, any accommodations to the learning environment, any modifications to the child's learning expectations, how the child will participate in standardized tests, and how the child will be included in the general education classroom and other activities in the school.
States receive additional funding through IDEA for eligible students.
IEP team must include the child's parent, at least one of the child's general education teachers, at least one special education teacher, school psychologist or other specialist who can interpret evaluation results, a district representative (LEA) - everyone on the IEP team must be present for IEP meetings unless previous arrangements have been approved
IEP covers a child age 3 to 21 during their school years.
3. What are 3 major Supreme Court decisions that directly impact Special Education and brief summaries of each (other than Rowley)?
One significant Supreme Court decision that impacts Special Education was Oberti v. Board of Education of Clementon School District (1993). The third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered full inclusion of a young child with Down Syndrome because the school has decided on a segregated placement before considering other supports and services that may have allowed the child to be successful in a general education classroom.
The Irving Independent School District v. Tatro case (1984) developed as a result of a child, Amber Tatro who was born with spina bifida and needed a catheterization procedure throughout the day. Without the catheterization procedure, she would be unable to attend school and would not benefit from special education. The school refused to provide catheterization services and the Tatros filed a suit. The Court ruled the catheterization procedure was a federally funded related service because a physician did not have to perform the procedure, and not a medical service, which are not often funded for schools. The Court acknowledged that schools receiving federal funding are required to supply related services that are necessary to enable children to benefit from special education
Honig v. Doe (1988) A case in which the supreme court ruled that students cannot be expelled/suspended indefinitely for behaviors that are related to the student's disability. In this case, an emotionally disturbed 17 year old boy who had difficulty controlling his anger responded to a taunt from a peer by choking the student and breaking a window.The court now suggests 10-day suspensions, designed to serve as a cooling down period during which officials can initiate IEP review and seek to persuade the child's parents to agree to an interim placement. And in those cases in which the parents of a truly dangerous child adamantly refuse to permit any change in placement, the 10-day respite gives school officials an opportunity to invoke the aid of the courts...to grant any appropriate relief.
1. What was the background, issue and decision in the 1982 Rowley court case? What are the implications?
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley- Amy Rowley was a first grade student who was deaf. She was an excellent lipreader. Her parents asked that she be provided with a sign language interpreter in the classroom but the school district refused their request and argued that she did not need an interpreter, she just needed a hearing aid. Her parents argued that she was not learning as much as she could if she were not deaf. They sued the school district and the court ruled in favor of the Rowleys.- This case defined the term free and public education (FAPE).
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Board-of-Education-of-the-Hendrick-Hudson-Central-School-District-v-RowleyThe 1982 Rowley court case led the Supreme Court to determine the meaning of FAPE after the Rowley's believed that they daughter Amy, who was deaf, have an interpreter in her classroom as a way to maximize her potential in the regular education classroom, in proportion to the opportunities of given to her classmates in order to reach their potential. The Supreme Court found that FAPE required instruction to be specially designed to meet the child's unique needs and to be supported by services that permit the child to benefit from instruction. In this case, the Supreme Court deemed that Amy Rowley was receiving FAPE because she was benefitting from the instruction being provided.
Some events that have impacted this "some educational benefit" standard today is the need to provide an adequate education for students to be successful in society, the establishment of high expectations for all students, and the focus on "real educational results" for all students with disabilities.
This led to the determination that when providing FAPE, instruction and services must be provided at public expense, must meet the state's educational standards, must approximate grade levels used in the state's regular education, and must comport with the child's IEP.
Although Amy was performing better than the average student in her class and was advancing easily from grade to grade, it was found that she was not understanding everything in the classroom, nor was she performing as well as she would have if she had not been deaf. The disparity between her achievement and her potential raised the question of whether or not she was really receiving a free and appropriate education.
2. What is the difference between a 504 Plan and an IEP according to the law?
504 Plan - Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a federal civil rights law to stop discrimination against people with disabilities
IEP - The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a federal special education law for children with disabilities
3. What are 3 major Supreme Court decisions that directly impact Special Education and brief summaries of each (other than Rowley)?
One significant Supreme Court decision that impacts Special Education was Oberti v. Board of Education of Clementon School District (1993). The third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered full inclusion of a young child with Down Syndrome because the school has decided on a segregated placement before considering other supports and services that may have allowed the child to be successful in a general education classroom.
The Irving Independent School District v. Tatro case (1984) developed as a result of a child, Amber Tatro who was born with spina bifida and needed a catheterization procedure throughout the day. Without the catheterization procedure, she would be unable to attend school and would not benefit from special education. The school refused to provide catheterization services and the Tatros filed a suit. The Court ruled the catheterization procedure was a federally funded related service because a physician did not have to perform the procedure, and not a medical service, which are not often funded for schools. The Court acknowledged that schools receiving federal funding are required to supply related services that are necessary to enable children to benefit from special education
Honig v. Doe (1988) A case in which the supreme court ruled that students cannot be expelled/suspended indefinitely for behaviors that are related to the student's disability. In this case, an emotionally disturbed 17 year old boy who had difficulty controlling his anger responded to a taunt from a peer by choking the student and breaking a window.The court now suggests 10-day suspensions, designed to serve as a cooling down period during which officials can initiate IEP review and seek to persuade the child's parents to agree to an interim placement. And in those cases in which the parents of a truly dangerous child adamantly refuse to permit any change in placement, the 10-day respite gives school officials an opportunity to invoke the aid of the courts...to grant any appropriate relief.